Human & Dino footprints, and Dating strata & fossils?

We don’t have enough geology around this joint, so here’s some elsewhere.

Folks have undoubtedly seen the claim by “Dr.” Carl Baugh that a human footprint has been found with a dino print partly overlapping it. Gary Hurd has done a nice analysis of a decent photo of the specimen and (surprise!} concludes that it’s a fake. Gary even identifies signs that suggest how the specimen’s patina was faked. Go and read Gary’s writeup.

Joe Meert also has a nice post up on a guy who appears to be Kent Hovind’s clone, “Dr.” Ron Carlson. Carlson makes absolute hash of geological dating and the history of science, and Joe does a nice job on him. I doubt, though, that Carlson will answer Joe’s email.

go to the bottom of the next page for a piccie. A computer guy then argues that Gary can’t make his inference as the resolution isn’t high enough. I think what Gary highlights looks quite clear, but the computer guy disagrees.

I am certainly that these are the same people who would regard The Flinstones as a cartoon drama based on science fact, not science fiction (For a real life example of which I can refer you to Ken Ham’s Creation Museum of Natural History. Unfortunately, I don’t recall reading any references there to Dino or Bam-Bam.).

debunking these people does not work, they will accept anything some scam artist tell them, example they are still buying into “found Noah’s Ark”, showing proof that scam artists have devised. Just Silly!

In addition to Gary’s excellent critique of this canard, there is an even simpler mistake made by the counterfeiter.

The center “toe” of the dinosaur footprint was an indentation in a raised soil matrix which surrounds the distal end of the digit and which extends into the central area of the “human” indentation (which by the way is a remaracably flat foot). In order to step onto an existing indentation in soft sediment and raise a mound of soil in front of the digits to the same height as the native soil on the far side (outside) of the original indentation, the foot of the dinosaur would have needed to slide forward, pushing, or bulldozing soil ahead of it. There is no evidence of movement within the dinosaur footprint, but subsequent erosion could have removed shallow grooves. However, based on the heel of the dinosaur footprint it is evident that this animal was not moving forward at a rapid rate and that the foot did not skid in the sediment. The foot was placed pretty much directly downward and lifted in much the same manner. The flat base of the dino footprint is further evidence that the animal was not moving rapidly (there are typically deeper heel and toe indentations when an animal is “running” which is also the condition in which the heel indentation has an initial strike surface which is not vertical beutwhich records the angle of contact with the ground as the animal moved forward. Under that scenario, the toe imprints are also deeper as the animal spings off its toes to maintain forward momentum.

this is the footprint of either a stanionary animal or one which was moving at a liesurly pace but the raised soil in front of the prominent medial digit would require forward movement at a rate which is not supported by the other evidence int he print.

Tom G(eologist) said:
this is the footprint of either a stanionary animal or one which was moving at a liesurly pace but the raised soil in front of the prominent medial digit would require forward movement at a rate which is not supported by the other evidence int he print.

Tom

Unbelievers!

There are at least two perfectly consistent explanations for Tom’s observation. One - it was a riding dinosaur shuffling about while waiting to be mounted. Two - they were dancing in the mud. Clearly the dinosaur was following, stepping over the human’s tracks. With my middling expertise in paleolithic ballroom culture, I can only narrow it down to some sort of Tango, or possibly a variant of a Cha-Cha, but unfortunately can’t get more specific with only the data available.

:)

Ok serious question - what sort of dinosaur? I’m curious (about the original track, not the creo blather)

I am glad you liked the discussion. I think that Tom also made a good point. However, I don’t know to what extent a track could be distortied by slumping, recoil or burial, or during lithification.

My best guess without directly examining the object is that some real track has been altered to fake the “human” footprint.

The features in the newspaper photo that I see indicating a fake patina created with an acid wash are also seen in a second news photo from a slightly different angle. If creationist photograph expert “sparko” at the TWeb site were correct that these don’t exist, then I must marvel that they are reproduced in two separate images.

It’s extraordinary that this fossil just happened to turn up near the museum, and it was found by a guy who needed some cash.

Also, what does this say about gaps in the fossil record? If humans lived in the Cretaceous, then it proves that a species can live for tens of millions of years without leaving any known fossils. Geez, no wonder there are so many gaps!

However, I think you have the wrong Gallifreyan Time Lord. It’s more The Master’s handiwork, aided and abetted, no doubt, with assistance from that great servant of Lucifer’s, one William A. Dembski.

Personally, I think Dembski has acted probably in collusion with some dastardly Romulans (Having met Dembski in person years ago, I wouldn’t be surprised if he is really a Romulan Tal Shiar agent pretending to be a human.).

I just listened to the excretal 10 minute lecture about paleontology by Dr. Ron Carlson. With Hovind in jail, Carlson has a real chance to break into the lead as the biggest living liar in creationism. Go to Joe Meert’s site. He was a hero for sitting through the whole thing. (I had to take several breaks and two beers).

Eric said:
Ok serious question - what sort of dinosaur? I’m curious (about the original track, not the creo blather)

With footprints, it’s nearly impossible to identify the species unless there’s very very strong correlating evidence nearby, and even then it gets iffy. However, it’s generally possible to tell if a print was made by a type of theropod, ornithopod, sauropodomorph, and so on. Footprints belong to “ichnospecies,” rather than the usual classifications. Anomoepus is an classification that includes small ornithopods, for example, while Brontopodus are most likely very large sauropods.

Anyway, given the known range of theropods in that place during the early Cretaceous, it’s possible that the prints were made by Acrocanthosaurus, which was kind of like an under-grown Allosaurus with a small crest running down the back.

Did they get so caught up in fakery that they forgot that they didn’t need to fake the human foot? I mean, I can see why you’d need to fake the dino print, but as for human feet, last time I checked all most people have to do is look down and, what do you know, there are two of them!

Gary:
In response to “I am glad you liked the discussion. I think that Tom also made a good point. However, I don’t know to what extent a track could be distortied by slumping, recoil or burial, or during lithification”

The middle dino toe has raised matric at the leading and lateral edges, but the left toe terminates into the heel of the “human” print at the same depth. Can’t be!!!! Also, distortion by slumping occurs on the inside of fossile imprints, not on the outside. Moreover, no other part of the print is distorted.
Burial would cause no distortion because preservation of a print of this type and quality occurs requires that the original sediment is hardened sufficiently prior to burial to maintain its original shape.
Lithification (induration) can not accoujt for that kind of distortion - at least not if the counterfeiter wants to maintain a claim that X-Rays and MRIs prove that induration did not distort compression features in the matrix below the prints. A rock in which such features are preserved can not have undergone post-depositional deformation of the type which would be required to create the disparate features on the hand-specimen scale.

This is not even a good fake - it violates the principle of superposition on two accounts.

I apologize up front for the completely off-topic question, but I’m hoping PT folks know more about this than I do: for the Comer v. Scott case, I thought the Texas Education Agency’s ‘Defense answer to complaint’ was due at the end of July. Have they submitted it yet? Has anyone seen it? Has there been a delay in the case?

Did they get so caught up in fakery that they forgot that they didn’t need to fake the human foot? I mean, I can see why you’d need to fake the dino print, but as for human feet, last time I checked all most people have to do is look down and, what do you know, there are two of them!

But how would you make an impression of your foot into stone, unless it is a form of concrete?

I apologize up front for the completely off-topic question, but I’m hoping PT folks know more about this than I do: for the Comer v. Scott case, I thought the Texas Education Agency’s ‘Defense answer to complaint’ was due at the end of July. Have they submitted it yet? Has anyone seen it? Has there been a delay in the case?

Thanks for the reminder, Eric. I took a look at the court’s electronic filing system (subscription required) and discovered that the defendants obtained a one-week extension. They are due to answer the complaint (and/or move to dismiss the complaint) on Monday, August 11.

You know, of course, that nuts claiming to find human footprints in old strata is nothing new. For example:
http://s8int.com/phile/page56.html
Anything that vaguely resembles a footprint is claimed to be big trouble for “evolutionists”, whoever they are.

One in particular showed that I was mistaken about the bubble pattern in the “dinosaur toes.” Ironically, at the same time the bubbly pattern of a fake acid applied “patina” was more clearly seen than before in the ball of the “human foot print.”

Additionally, when examining these same photos, it is even more obvious that there was no “compression” or distortion of the natural stratification of the original rock. The only possible way these marks were made was by removal, and not by impression. I looked very carefully in the weird pit claimed to be the “human big toe” and there is obviously additional disturbed matrix. A deep root mold? It sure aint a toe.

There will be, I suppose, more events to follow. Someone called “froggy” who seems to be connected either to Baugh, the small town newspaper, or both, keeps promising new revelations on my personal blog, Stones and Bones.

This “Delk footprint” is just the latest example of many Cretaceous “man tracks” and other dubious objects Carl Baugh and associates have promoted over the years. For my review of it please see:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm

One thing I really like about blogs is that they spark an idea in my brain. When that happens, I feel like I need to provide feedback expecting it may be pleasant to some people. Considering the fact that there are lots of weblogs with completely different points of view, they encourage your thinking. It really is at these moments when you have fantastic insignt other people may not have had, along with the blogger him/herself. I find myself coming back to your site simply because you have many brilliant insights and you have been at this a while, that is very inspiring and tells me you know a lot. Keep sparking imagination in other people!